"Really? Worst film you ever saw. Well, my next one will be better."
August 14, 2007 5:56 PM   Subscribe

Last summer, Uwe Boll took on four of his many critics. The "Teutonic Terror" (an amateur boxer who spent months in training for the event) so throughly savaged his opponents that three of them became gushing fans. Sure, he exploits an enormous German tax loophole to make dreadful films, but maybe he's just an industry-savvy Ed Wood. His most recent bit of empassioned lunacy suggests so. Hell, he has one more doctorate in literature than I do, and even the Wired guys though one part of Postal was funny.
posted by absalom (35 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
Wow, lame and yet still offernsive.

But, really, mostly just lame.
posted by oddman at 6:20 PM on August 14, 2007

posted by Jairus at 6:24 PM on August 14, 2007

To compare him to Ed Wood is a sin. Ed Wood remains fascinating because, despite no finances and a minimum of competence, he was desperately attempting to express his passions onscreen, and they were pretty interesting passions -- horror movies and transvestitism, mostly. Boll's film are made with a minimal amount of competence, but if they show a man pursuing a passion, it is only one passion, and one that is singularly uninteresting -- a man's love for making a fast, ugly buck.

The fact that he responds to his critics with fractured English, calls to physical battle, profanities, and declarations of his own genius only add one additional -- and additionally boring -- quality to the director: He is also a blowhard.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:32 PM on August 14, 2007 [9 favorites]

But what do you really think, Astro Zombie?
posted by Poolio at 6:33 PM on August 14, 2007

He's not exploiting a loophole. That bit of tax law is intentional.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:40 PM on August 14, 2007


I call George Lucas.

I want to do to him what he did to my child hood's favorite sci-fantasy.
posted by sien at 6:40 PM on August 14, 2007

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by notsnot at 6:49 PM on August 14, 2007

He beat the living hell out of Lowtax, he's cool in my book.
posted by polyhedron at 7:02 PM on August 14, 2007

They gave him Postal? Really?

I mean, it was a game that was designed to be offensive. In the first one, you were taking a flamethrower to protesters and ostriches.

It was absurdly violent, and to properly convey that on film would require a deft hand; too much and you have gone into farce, not enough and it's just pointless violence.

But the thing is, it has to be funny as well. You could certainly give it to someone like Scorsese or Stone and end up with something brilliant, but the key to the games appeal was the humor. I think maybe Tarantino or Kevin Smith could do it. They have proven to have both a good eye and a strong comedic sense. Hell, Robert Rodriguez would be pretty near perfect for this material.

But Boll? The only thing about his movies that ever elicited a laugh was a sort of sickened oh-my-god-someone-actually-spent-time-on-this, kind of thing.

He is the enemy of film.
posted by quin at 7:08 PM on August 14, 2007

how in the world did ben kingsley end up in bloodrayne? i just don't get that one at all, could it just have been the money?
posted by andywolf at 7:13 PM on August 14, 2007

maybe he's just an industry-savvy Ed Wood

Uwe Boll couldn't walk a mile in Wood's pink angora sweater. Wood was a true eccentric; Boll's just another mug with a mouth and a camera. Uwe, when the highlights of your career are random assaults on internet crackpots and your famed association with Tara Reid, well, it's time to seek Jesus.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:33 PM on August 14, 2007 [3 favorites]

A talent for beating up geeks does not equal talent in making films.
posted by fenriq at 7:38 PM on August 14, 2007

octobersurprise's comment wins the thread, and is the reason metafilter needs signature lines.
posted by chlorus at 7:39 PM on August 14, 2007

how in the world did ben kingsley end up in bloodrayne? i just don't get that one at all, could it just have been the money?

Kingsley expains, "To be honest, I have always wanted to play a vampire, with the teeth and the long black cape. Let's say that my motives were somewhat immature for doing it." (link). I wonder if that's how he gets other actors, like maybe Tara Reid always wanted to play a brainy scientist or Dave Foley always wanted to do full frontal nudity, so he indulges them to get them on board.
posted by bobo123 at 7:42 PM on August 14, 2007

It's weird how his life would make a better film than his films.
posted by sien at 7:56 PM on August 14, 2007 [3 favorites]

I'm going to have to side on the Boll camp here. The very fact that Hijacker Number #2 is mortified that he has to speak to Osama, moments before his own suicide, is hysterical.
posted by eurasian at 7:56 PM on August 14, 2007

That Postal clip is great. His stock just went up in my book.
posted by notmydesk at 8:08 PM on August 14, 2007

He's not exploiting a loophole. That bit of tax law is intentional.

Well, possibly, but the way he's using it is in a very "Producers"ish fashion. If one of his movies didn't bomb he'd be in trouble!

Actually, my understanding is that the loophole part of the law he'd been exploiting -- that is, using his failed films as massive tax writeoffs for the people who financed them -- had been closed, and I am curious how (and why) he's getting money for movies now.
posted by Silentgoldfish at 8:10 PM on August 14, 2007

I call George Lucas.
I want to do to him what he did to my child hood's favorite sci-fantasy.

What? Create him or milk him for more money?
Uwe Boll != Cash Cow or Seminal Cinema.
posted by eparchos at 10:34 PM on August 14, 2007

The Postal clip was actually good. Debating the (rapidly decreasing) number of virgins? Comedy gold.
posted by pantsrobot at 12:55 AM on August 15, 2007

Debating the (rapidly decreasing) number of virgins? Comedy gold.

Wasn't that joke already done by one of the Danish Mohammed cartoons?
posted by flashboy at 1:26 AM on August 15, 2007

I laughed at the clip, but what AZ said. Despite his rep, Wood was not the worst filmmaker of all time. His work was genuinely interesting, unlike Boll's. Boll is a businessman, and nothing else (although he appears to be a very savy one). He displays none of the passion that Wood did.

However, I have been hearing good things about Postal, sometimes from people who have been, rightfully, very critical of him in the past. We'll see, I guess.
posted by brundlefly at 2:32 AM on August 15, 2007

I made the mistake of checking out Alone in the Dark
from the library. As with many library DVDs, it was hopelessly scratched and we didn't get to see the second hour of montages of actors screaming or yelling under strobe lights.

We didn't care.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:35 AM on August 15, 2007

maybe he's just an industry-savvy Ed Wood

Blasphemy. Ed Wood made films that are classics for almost no money. Uwe Boll makes films that will thankfully be forgotten, and he needs millions of dollars to do it. Despite the quality of the finished product, Wood's early work (before his tragic downward spiral to alcoholism and porno) showed a person who tried with every ounce of will in his body to defy the lack of professional filmmaking skill despite almost no resources on hand to do so. Boll, on the other hand, is a trained filmmaker who couldn't make a watchable movie if you emptied Fort Knox to fund it.

Wood had a camera and about ten bucks and managed to make a half-dozen classic films with it. If you gave nothing but a camera to Boll, I would be amazed- amazed- if he didn't poke it with a stick for a few minutes and then try to eat part of it. We mock Ed Wood, but Uwe Boll mocks us.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:20 AM on August 15, 2007 [5 favorites]

KirkJobSluder, you missed out. Alone In The Dark on its own is almost, but not quite, the worst movie Boll's made (that I've seen).


The DVD is worth checking out for the unstoppable hilarity of the commentary track. It's 90-minutes of pure Boll nuttiness. From an opening rant about how his movie is real unlike stupid bullshit like The Matrix, to the line about Tara Reid being put in glasses because they wanted her to appear smart to... Well.

Let's just say that the actual movie is not why one should (temporarily) acquire a copy of that DVD.
posted by sparkletone at 7:14 AM on August 15, 2007

Uwe Boll is the enemy of life itself.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:25 AM on August 15, 2007

Do we really need Yet Another Uwe Boll Post?
posted by mkultra at 10:20 AM on August 15, 2007

Is there a better source on this tax loophole theory? It seems like its an incredible stretch to acccuse this guy for purposely making bad movies so that the german government can provide some kind of tax relief?

This sounds like an incredible risk for anyone to try. I can imagine the tax relief exceeding the money put in. So if an investor puts in 3 million, loses it all, and the government gives him 1 or 2 million, well that's nice but thats still an incredible net loss.

I think its more realistic to assume that Boll and his investors are just not very bright.
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:26 AM on August 15, 2007

posted by ninjew at 11:20 AM on August 15, 2007

No DDA, you spent 3 million to spare 3 million from taxation. In a country with greater that 50% taxes for the very weathy the ability to shelter such large amounts from taxes is a great opportunity.

I don't understand why they are still investing, I thought the loophole closed in 06
posted by Megafly at 11:44 AM on August 15, 2007

I suppose it’s cathartic to confront internet tough guys face to face.
But I have to say, even if - no, especially if you win, if more than a few guys are willing to take an ass kicking because they hate your work so badly, it should probably lead to some introspection about a career change.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:15 PM on August 15, 2007

I agree, the comparison to Ed Wood is blasphemous. That's why I said it. But, his insane emails to the wired staff has forced me to reevaluate somewhat my opinion of the guy. I mean, if I was just cranking out dreck for the skrilla, I wouldn't give a flying pancake what anyone else said. But, he doesn't. He gets pissed. He rants and raves and says things that would make right thinking publicist shoot themselves. I have trouble, now, seeing him as simply someone gaming the system to make a buck. What if he truly sees himself as some sort of misunderstood visionary? It's absolutely insane, sure, but certainly more deep and interesting than simply a slash-and-burn franchise filmmaker. I think, perhaps, that might be why so many of those critics he pummeled became so positive about him: because people - especially on the internets - rally around passionate crackpots all the time.
posted by absalom at 2:18 PM on August 15, 2007

Interesting point, absalom. If he were merely hacky, no one would give a rat's ass.
posted by brundlefly at 3:40 PM on August 15, 2007

The commentary track I mentioned in my earlier comment contains several bits that really suggest that Boll does in fact see himself as a misunderstood artiste.

The level of delusion is part of the aforementioned hilarity.
posted by sparkletone at 6:39 AM on August 16, 2007

I met a German foreign exchange student at a party last year who claimed to be a family friend of Uwe Boll (he was surprised that I knew the name, though). I have no way to verify what I was told, but he said that Boll readily admits he's just in it to make as much money as possible off films made as cheaply as possible (and is apparently doing a very good job of it), using videogame licenses to draw in viewers to (relatively) low-budget flicks. While I can't stand the man's films, I must say he's worked out a good way to make buckets of cash. Now if only he didn't destroy fans' hopes of having their favorite properties turned into non-crappy movies along the way...
posted by Alterscape at 2:35 PM on August 16, 2007

« Older What's the name of that song?   |   Come in... Leave a comment and have some... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments